RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - After more than two years of silence, a slowly swelling chorus of Palestinian leaders and opinion-makers says taking up arms against Israel was a mistake and must stop. The latest voice is that of Jibril Rajoub, once the most powerful security chief in the West Bank, who says he warned Yasser Arafat 10 days after the start of the uprising that allowing armed gangs to take over would lead to disaster. Rajoub’s forecast has proven chillingly accurate: 26 months later, nearly 2,000 Palestinians and nearly 700 Israelis are dead, the Palestinian economy is crushed, Israel has reoccupied the West Bank and Israeli travel bans have turned many Palestinian towns into virtual prison camps.
Palestinian debate about the uprising had been stifled for many reasons - Arafat’s autocratic rule, fear of seeming disloyal and a belief the evils of the Israeli occupation dwarf any Palestinian wrongdoing. Even critics say the initial mass protests in the fall of 2000 were a justifiable expression of Palestinian anger over fruitless negotiations.
“Some of our people made terrible mistakes, and for this reason we paid a lot,” Rajoub said in an interview. Arafat deputy Mahmoud Abbas had also spoken out against violence, but only in closed meetings. That changed last month when Abbas’ office gave The Associated Press and the London-based Al Hayat newspaper a transcript of a tough talk he had with Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip. In an interview with the Qatari newspaper Al-Rayah on Sunday, Abbas repeated that armed attacks have destroyed all gains since Israel and the PLO signed accords that set up the Palestinian Authority as a government-in-waiting.
A November poll shows Palestinian opinion shifting. Although 90 percent of Palestinians support attacks on Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza, 56 percent now support arresting militants to stop attacks inside Israel. As recently as May, 86 percent opposed a crackdown on militias.
Sharon is not dictator-for-life. He cannot even form a government without a coalition and there are many Israeli groups who initially protested the actions of their government. (The length with which the uprising has gone on with its attendant violence has tended to mute those voices.)
I make no predictions of what will happen, but people who look at any action on either side and then claim that the other side is the problem constitute the real problem.
I was not claiming that one side was the problem over the other, only that both sides need to recognize that tit-fo-tat violence is useless, a vicious cycle.
Each side (and this is the case in all our conflicts right now) needs to resolve its fear of the other side.
IMO JonScribe fails to take an essential logical step in differentiating the types of violence. One indeed is reactive (he calls it tit-for-tat) and it is an endless cycle. The other is proactive - action taken to eliminate or lessen damage.
He may not like it, but Palestinian violence is 100% reactive - they openly declare that they did murder bombing A in response to such-and-such event. Much if not most of Israel activity it proactive - trying to find, stop or destroy elements that will be performing violence. Now if you’re trying to end the cycle of violence, who do you think should stop first.
Leaving aside that quite a few terrorists acts against Israel go unclaimed by any specific group, and ignoring the fact that Israel routinely acts in an explicitly reactive manner, your suggestion does nothing to move either side closer to peace. It simply perpetuates the “he hit me back first” mentality that keeps the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (and the Northern Ireland conflict, and various Balkan battles, and the Hatfields and the McCoys, ad nauseam), feuding forever.
Both sides must be encouraged to stop and talk. And when some splinter faction on either side continues the violence, the central groups on both sides should ignore that sideshow while continuing to talk. Northern Ireland (which has still not achieved peace) is more peaceful now that the central groups on each side have chosen to continue discussions regardless of the violent idiots that are associated with each side.
tomndebb - spoken cool and rational - like a true outsider. Come and get engaged in the daily carnage, and tell us then to “stop and talk”. I agree, there is a “you hit me, I hit you back” cycle, but that’s human nature. You’re not dealing with robots here. Children bleed and spew out real body organs in a bombed bus, not replaceable plastic parts.
But what do you do when the “splinter faction” is a part of the “central group”, is funded by it, armed and supported by it and manned by it. Palestinian terrorist activity didn’t start last year, or in 2000, or in 1992, or in 1967. The people who you call the “central group” are the very same terrorists who were killing civilians in 1964, and 1955 and before.
If you want to ask a meaningful question, ask this one - who started the currrent round, because IMO that’s the side that should stop the cycle… If you tell me Sharon did by walking on a piece of land, then you’ve got a peculiarly skewed view of action/reaction.
BTW I shouldn’t rise to the bait of deal people as a “sideshow”, but you’re seriously in need of therapy if that’s your actual opinion and not a slip of the tongue!
So, your position is that the killing is OK, or at least that it can never end?
To the extent that Northern Ireland has peace, today, it was the pressure of the majority of the people on both sides who demanded of their armed associates that they stop the killing.
To date, neither side in the Israeli/Palestinian situation has had enough people willing to do that. The OP indicates that there is movement. I support that movement. To the extent that you continue with “they have to quit first,” you oppose that movement and support the continued killing.
(Note, that I have not claimed that Israel must lay down its arms and simply suffer any and all attacks. I only note that the fighting will continue as long as the supporters of Israel and the supporters of the Palestinians cheer them on with each strike or insist on some sort of imaginary parity in their respective vendettas.)
No, Killing is not OK. I feel bad when a 2 year old Palestinian kid is killed, just as I do when a 2 year old Israeli kid is killed. My feelings are somewhat moderated, however, by the (usual) circumstances where the Palestinian was killed in the heat of battle, without intent, and the Israeli was a deliberate target of the murderer.
All killing is bad, unless you are doing it to stop even more savagery.
Question - do I support the death penalty?
Answer - unequivocal NO!
Question - would I have shot Hitler in 1933?
Answer - unequivocal YES!!!
Second point - who says I support the continued killing? If some imaginary power could broker a fair, reasonable and trustworthy agreement that both side stop the killing simultaneously, like the one that started Ireland on the (bumpy) road to peace, I’d be for it 110%. There are 4 problems in this supposition.
What is fair?
What is reasonable?
Are the parties trustworthy?
Who is this imaginary power?
Well, I have not. I have pointed out that if you hold to a “they have to go first” position (which was implied in your earlier post), you are, ultimately, supporting the continuation of violence.
As for “imaginary powers” to broker a peace: the efforts of George Mitchell only came about after more than fifteen years of internal calls for an end to violence. (And Mitchell used no “power.” He was a true neutral with no military force behind him and no perceived favoritism to one side or the other. The mediator for the Israeli/Palestinian dispute may need to be a Canadian or an Indian or a Russian with no vested interests, rather than a “power” to enforce decisions that will provoke further reaction when any decision is perceived to lean too far toward one side.) I make no claim that there is a magic solution that will bring swift peace to the region. I have only pointed out that neither blanket condemnation of one’s opponents (nor the constant refrain on both sides that “their violence is worse than our violence”), nor resignation to the situation will bring peace.
What is fair and equitable? That is for the participants to decide. Who is trustworthy? Whoever keeps their promises–and does not bury their promises in so many conditions as to make them useless. If one side begins to honor all their commitments, the other side will find international pressure exerted to honor all theirs. This is true whether it involves surrendering held territory or striking calls of obliteration from their charters as well as all the other issues that they face.
Are the Israelis going to make any token concessions in the light of these findings? If not they should. If the Israelis and their supporters are worried that concessions in the wake of terrorist attacks would encourage more attacks, then concessions amid growing opposition to terrorism and acceptance of Israel’s right to exist should encourage more of the same. There needs to be a carrot along with the stick.
Well that depends on what is behind the Palestinian opinion shift. If they say it is self-defeating because of the Israeli reaction, then more of the same is called for. We need more details.
And for sqweels: I don’t think you make concessions to a poll - action, maybe.
And of course there isn’t. However, there is a solution and it must begin with someone being willing to refuse to blame the other side for the past and for the future and to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. And, as a result, to find the courage to lay down their guns. No matter the immediate cost. The long term result would be an end to the constant pain and suffering and killing, the horrible scarring of lives and limbs and minds.
I’m not so naive as to think this will happen tomorrow. Or to believe it would be an easy thing to do. It would take such an exertion of ethical strength and courage that it would appear to be cowardice in a leader, and I despair that we (as humans) may not be capable of such a thing. I am certain it would be beyond me in such a position. But it must happen.
jm
But it’s an attitude and attitudes are what underlay everything. Positive attitudes are particularly precious over there and should be nurtured, not ignored. Besides, I said a token concession in lieu of more concrete actions by the Palestinians, which should then be rewarded with more significant concession by the Israelis.
[QUOTE The mediator for the Israeli/Palestinian dispute may need to be a Canadian or an Indian or a Russian with no vested interests, rather than a “power” to enforce decisions that will provoke further reaction when any decision is perceived to lean too far toward one side.)[/QUOTE]
We could have a Negotiator Exchange program!
An Indian-Pakistani team could go to Palestine/Israel.
A Russian/Chechnyan team could go to India/Pakistan.
A North/South Irish team could go to Russia/Chechnya.
A Chinese/Taiwanese team could go to North/South Ireland.
A Palestinian/Israeli team could go to China/Taiwan.
They could each stay a month then rotate. Of course, the Palestinians will be accused (and vice versa) of siding with fellow Muslims in Pakistan. Still, some perspective on other people killing each other may serve them when thinking about their own people killing each other.
Hennadancer